Trump promotes himself as a ‘leader’ in IVF, causing frustration among some Republicans
The proposal is creating a divide between two key factions of the Republican Party.
TroibNews 
During his debate with Vice President Kamala Harris on Tuesday, Donald Trump positioned himself as a “leader” in the realm of in vitro fertilization (IVF), but his proposals are stirring significant anger within segments of the Republican Party.
The former president, looking to counter criticisms that his potential election could jeopardize fertility care, has pledged to provide free IVF treatments to all Americans, funded either by insurance companies or through federal resources.
This proposal seeks to win back moderate women who have distanced themselves from Trump and to address Democratic critiques regarding his stance on reproductive health, which have persisted since the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade over two years ago. In the debate, Harris pointed out that “couples who pray and dream of having a family are being denied IVF treatments” due to state restrictions she describes as “Trump abortion bans.”
However, as the election approaches, Trump's plan is alienating essential factions of the Republican Party: small-government advocates upset by the notion of a broad new federal requirement and religious conservatives who reject IVF as it is commonly practiced. “Though we share his desire for Americans to have more babies, Trump's plan to fund in vitro fertilization for all American women is in direct contradiction with that hope,” stated Pro-Life Action League President Ann Scheidler. “Hundreds of thousands of embryos — each of them as fully human as you or me — are created and then destroyed or frozen in IVF procedures.”
The GOP has been on the defensive since the Alabama Supreme Court spotlighted IVF with a ruling that classified frozen embryos as people, referencing the Dobbs decision. This led some fertility clinics in Alabama to halt treatments until the legislature acted to restore access two weeks later. Trump promptly opposed the Alabama ruling, causing discontent among many conservatives.
His campaign defends the universal IVF policy as a long-term investment in response to the country's historically low birth rate. Campaign aides indicate that the proposal has garnered more support from independents in some critical battlegrounds while maintaining anti-abortion voter support.
“We want more babies, to put it very nicely. And for the same reason, we will also allow new parents to deduct major newborn expenses from their taxes,” Trump stated in a recent announcement.
Trump’s approach to IVF comes as he and other Republicans navigate the fallout from the Roe v. Wade decision. He is attempting to present himself as moderate by advocating for state-level decisions regarding abortion, allowing for access in some areas while imposing bans in others, and by expressing support for exceptions in cases of rape and incest, IVF, and broader “reproductive rights.” “I've been a leader on it. They know that and everybody else knows it. I have been a leader on fertilization, IVF,” he remarked during the debate.
Yet many conservatives are outraged, or at least skeptical, of his free IVF plan due to concerns about taxpayer costs, the implications for increased government involvement in healthcare, and an implicit approval of practices like embryo disposal, which they view as ethically unacceptable. Trump’s running mate, Ohio Senator JD Vance, previously penned a forward to a Heritage Foundation essay collection that raised concerns regarding IVF. Earlier this year, he joined the majority of Senate Republicans in blocking a bill aimed at federally protecting access to IVF and other fertility treatments.
Organizations such as the Pro-Life Action League are urging Trump “to walk back this IVF funding scheme,” while the editor of National Review Online emphasizes the inconsistency of a party that opposed the Affordable Care Act now backing further federal healthcare mandates. Some conservatives equate Trump’s IVF proposal to former President Barack Obama’s 2012 contraceptive mandate, which faced widespread criticism and was challenged in court.
“There are still bona fide limited-government conservatives in the Republican Party who look at this and say: ‘Think about how expensive IVF is!’” remarked Patrick Brown, a fellow at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center. “This could be billions of dollars for something that we think has significant moral complications. What is conservative about that?”
The proposal, which would require congressional approval, has split Republicans on Capitol Hill, most of whom support Trump. Senator Tom Cotton expressed openness to the idea, whereas Representative Elise Stefanik, the House GOP conference chair, suggested that Trump’s IVF initiative should be “applauded by the pro-life community as it will further promote the culture of life.”
Other GOP lawmakers have reacted with mixed feelings, grappling with the ambiguity of Trump’s proposal and its potential costs. Senator John Thune, vying to succeed Mitch McConnell as leader of the Senate Republican caucus, told Axios he was uncertain about “whether or not that's something that you would want to mandate on insurance companies.” Senator Lindsey Graham was more direct, stating to ABC, “there's no end” to the cost of the policy, and suggesting a means-tested tax credit instead.
Senate Democrats plan to highlight these rifts in the upcoming weeks by advancing legislation from Senator Tammy Duckworth, an IVF parent, that would federally guarantee access to fertility treatments and require private and public insurance coverage. Almost all Senate Republicans voted against this bill when it was presented in June, contending that its scope was overly broad. Senators Ted Cruz and Katie Britt have proposed an alternative that would remove federal Medicaid funding from states that outlaw IVF services but permit limitations on embryo treatment and disposal methods, though this bill remains stagnant.
Although the Republican Party struggles to coalesce around a unified stance on IVF, GOP strategists believe that Trump's proposal could help garner sufficient voter support in key states due to the election’s likely tight margins. Trump’s former senior advisor, Kellyanne Conway, has encouraged party members to endorse IVF by referencing polling data that indicates substantial backing, even among GOP voters, for candidates who prioritize increasing access to contraceptives and fertility treatments. This survey revealed 78 percent support for IVF among self-identified “pro-life advocates” and 83 percent among evangelical Christians.
“Look, he’s never going to win on this issue but if he can chip away at the margins, that’s a potential path for him,” noted Stephen Lawson, a Republican strategist from Georgia, a critical swing state that Biden narrowly won in 2020, where Trump and Harris are currently in a tight contest. “For swing voters who are genuinely undecided or going back and forth, it’s another potential policy tool in the toolkit for them to get comfortable pulling the lever for him.”
Democrats are keen to capitalize on this situation to portray the GOP as extreme, drawing attention to the ruling in Alabama and arguing that Trump’s election could threaten IVF access nationwide. This has led Republicans to work to reinforce their pro-IVF credentials, a move that does not sit well with many anti-abortion advocates.
Duckworth, present in the debate spin room Tuesday night in Philadelphia, claimed that Trump, by facilitating the end of Roe, is the primary reason IVF access is now at risk. Meanwhile, Harris’ running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, consistently references his personal experiences with fertility treatments in his campaign speeches.
Trump’s effort to mitigate attacks from Harris, Walz, Duckworth, and others with his pro-IVF initiative may, however, undercut his appeal among some white evangelicals who are already wary of supporting him this election cycle. While many evangelical voters consider Trump to be significantly more favorable on abortion than Harris, some have expressed serious discontent with his fluctuating rhetoric in recent weeks, particularly concerning his criticisms of Florida’s six-week abortion ban.
Despite a general support for IVF among evangelicals and “pro-life advocates,” sentiment may be shifting as social conservatives view opposition to the procedure as a new frontier for the “pro-life movement.” The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest and most politically significant Protestant group in the U.S., voted in June to oppose IVF — a decision that could encourage similar stances from other denominations.
“Listen, I’m a realist here. I know my position is so unpopular. … But what I found myself just scratching my head at was this idea that there would now be an IVF mandate required by insurers,” stated Andrew Walker, a Christian ethics professor at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary who opposes IVF and co-authored the Southern Baptist resolution. “I mean, that’s basically somewhat of a facsimile from what Obama was doing with the HHS mandate. You’re going to require faith-based organizations to carry insurance that covers IVF against their conscience?”
“Even if you are for IVF, you ought to be able to say you shouldn’t force an organization to carry insurance coverage that they don’t want to carry,” he added.
Political strategists from both parties believe Trump requires the backing of 80 percent of white evangelicals nationwide to secure victory. In 2020, Biden achieved the second-highest percentage of white evangelical support for a Democrat this century, trailing only Obama in 2008, as indicated by CNN exit polls. In a tightly contested race, those votes could prove crucial.
Prominent evangelical leaders have cautioned that despite Trump’s apparent adjustments following his recent missteps on abortion—including his proclamation opposing a Florida ballot measure to expand access—he remains under scrutiny by many grassroots voters as the Republican Party increasingly veers away from socially conservative issues such as abortion and gay marriage. While white evangelicals have historically composed a core constituency for the Republican Party, these leaders argue that there is no assurance that Christian voters will maintain their engagement in politics as they have in the past.
“Maybe he pays a political price for November,” Brown concluded. “It's going to be a tight election, and even a handful of demotivated pro-lifers in key swing states can make a difference.”
Emily Johnson contributed to this report for TROIB News
The former president, looking to counter criticisms that his potential election could jeopardize fertility care, has pledged to provide free IVF treatments to all Americans, funded either by insurance companies or through federal resources.
This proposal seeks to win back moderate women who have distanced themselves from Trump and to address Democratic critiques regarding his stance on reproductive health, which have persisted since the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade over two years ago. In the debate, Harris pointed out that “couples who pray and dream of having a family are being denied IVF treatments” due to state restrictions she describes as “Trump abortion bans.”
However, as the election approaches, Trump's plan is alienating essential factions of the Republican Party: small-government advocates upset by the notion of a broad new federal requirement and religious conservatives who reject IVF as it is commonly practiced. “Though we share his desire for Americans to have more babies, Trump's plan to fund in vitro fertilization for all American women is in direct contradiction with that hope,” stated Pro-Life Action League President Ann Scheidler. “Hundreds of thousands of embryos — each of them as fully human as you or me — are created and then destroyed or frozen in IVF procedures.”
The GOP has been on the defensive since the Alabama Supreme Court spotlighted IVF with a ruling that classified frozen embryos as people, referencing the Dobbs decision. This led some fertility clinics in Alabama to halt treatments until the legislature acted to restore access two weeks later. Trump promptly opposed the Alabama ruling, causing discontent among many conservatives.
His campaign defends the universal IVF policy as a long-term investment in response to the country's historically low birth rate. Campaign aides indicate that the proposal has garnered more support from independents in some critical battlegrounds while maintaining anti-abortion voter support.
“We want more babies, to put it very nicely. And for the same reason, we will also allow new parents to deduct major newborn expenses from their taxes,” Trump stated in a recent announcement.
Trump’s approach to IVF comes as he and other Republicans navigate the fallout from the Roe v. Wade decision. He is attempting to present himself as moderate by advocating for state-level decisions regarding abortion, allowing for access in some areas while imposing bans in others, and by expressing support for exceptions in cases of rape and incest, IVF, and broader “reproductive rights.” “I've been a leader on it. They know that and everybody else knows it. I have been a leader on fertilization, IVF,” he remarked during the debate.
Yet many conservatives are outraged, or at least skeptical, of his free IVF plan due to concerns about taxpayer costs, the implications for increased government involvement in healthcare, and an implicit approval of practices like embryo disposal, which they view as ethically unacceptable. Trump’s running mate, Ohio Senator JD Vance, previously penned a forward to a Heritage Foundation essay collection that raised concerns regarding IVF. Earlier this year, he joined the majority of Senate Republicans in blocking a bill aimed at federally protecting access to IVF and other fertility treatments.
Organizations such as the Pro-Life Action League are urging Trump “to walk back this IVF funding scheme,” while the editor of National Review Online emphasizes the inconsistency of a party that opposed the Affordable Care Act now backing further federal healthcare mandates. Some conservatives equate Trump’s IVF proposal to former President Barack Obama’s 2012 contraceptive mandate, which faced widespread criticism and was challenged in court.
“There are still bona fide limited-government conservatives in the Republican Party who look at this and say: ‘Think about how expensive IVF is!’” remarked Patrick Brown, a fellow at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center. “This could be billions of dollars for something that we think has significant moral complications. What is conservative about that?”
The proposal, which would require congressional approval, has split Republicans on Capitol Hill, most of whom support Trump. Senator Tom Cotton expressed openness to the idea, whereas Representative Elise Stefanik, the House GOP conference chair, suggested that Trump’s IVF initiative should be “applauded by the pro-life community as it will further promote the culture of life.”
Other GOP lawmakers have reacted with mixed feelings, grappling with the ambiguity of Trump’s proposal and its potential costs. Senator John Thune, vying to succeed Mitch McConnell as leader of the Senate Republican caucus, told Axios he was uncertain about “whether or not that's something that you would want to mandate on insurance companies.” Senator Lindsey Graham was more direct, stating to ABC, “there's no end” to the cost of the policy, and suggesting a means-tested tax credit instead.
Senate Democrats plan to highlight these rifts in the upcoming weeks by advancing legislation from Senator Tammy Duckworth, an IVF parent, that would federally guarantee access to fertility treatments and require private and public insurance coverage. Almost all Senate Republicans voted against this bill when it was presented in June, contending that its scope was overly broad. Senators Ted Cruz and Katie Britt have proposed an alternative that would remove federal Medicaid funding from states that outlaw IVF services but permit limitations on embryo treatment and disposal methods, though this bill remains stagnant.
Although the Republican Party struggles to coalesce around a unified stance on IVF, GOP strategists believe that Trump's proposal could help garner sufficient voter support in key states due to the election’s likely tight margins. Trump’s former senior advisor, Kellyanne Conway, has encouraged party members to endorse IVF by referencing polling data that indicates substantial backing, even among GOP voters, for candidates who prioritize increasing access to contraceptives and fertility treatments. This survey revealed 78 percent support for IVF among self-identified “pro-life advocates” and 83 percent among evangelical Christians.
“Look, he’s never going to win on this issue but if he can chip away at the margins, that’s a potential path for him,” noted Stephen Lawson, a Republican strategist from Georgia, a critical swing state that Biden narrowly won in 2020, where Trump and Harris are currently in a tight contest. “For swing voters who are genuinely undecided or going back and forth, it’s another potential policy tool in the toolkit for them to get comfortable pulling the lever for him.”
Democrats are keen to capitalize on this situation to portray the GOP as extreme, drawing attention to the ruling in Alabama and arguing that Trump’s election could threaten IVF access nationwide. This has led Republicans to work to reinforce their pro-IVF credentials, a move that does not sit well with many anti-abortion advocates.
Duckworth, present in the debate spin room Tuesday night in Philadelphia, claimed that Trump, by facilitating the end of Roe, is the primary reason IVF access is now at risk. Meanwhile, Harris’ running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, consistently references his personal experiences with fertility treatments in his campaign speeches.
Trump’s effort to mitigate attacks from Harris, Walz, Duckworth, and others with his pro-IVF initiative may, however, undercut his appeal among some white evangelicals who are already wary of supporting him this election cycle. While many evangelical voters consider Trump to be significantly more favorable on abortion than Harris, some have expressed serious discontent with his fluctuating rhetoric in recent weeks, particularly concerning his criticisms of Florida’s six-week abortion ban.
Despite a general support for IVF among evangelicals and “pro-life advocates,” sentiment may be shifting as social conservatives view opposition to the procedure as a new frontier for the “pro-life movement.” The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest and most politically significant Protestant group in the U.S., voted in June to oppose IVF — a decision that could encourage similar stances from other denominations.
“Listen, I’m a realist here. I know my position is so unpopular. … But what I found myself just scratching my head at was this idea that there would now be an IVF mandate required by insurers,” stated Andrew Walker, a Christian ethics professor at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary who opposes IVF and co-authored the Southern Baptist resolution. “I mean, that’s basically somewhat of a facsimile from what Obama was doing with the HHS mandate. You’re going to require faith-based organizations to carry insurance that covers IVF against their conscience?”
“Even if you are for IVF, you ought to be able to say you shouldn’t force an organization to carry insurance coverage that they don’t want to carry,” he added.
Political strategists from both parties believe Trump requires the backing of 80 percent of white evangelicals nationwide to secure victory. In 2020, Biden achieved the second-highest percentage of white evangelical support for a Democrat this century, trailing only Obama in 2008, as indicated by CNN exit polls. In a tightly contested race, those votes could prove crucial.
Prominent evangelical leaders have cautioned that despite Trump’s apparent adjustments following his recent missteps on abortion—including his proclamation opposing a Florida ballot measure to expand access—he remains under scrutiny by many grassroots voters as the Republican Party increasingly veers away from socially conservative issues such as abortion and gay marriage. While white evangelicals have historically composed a core constituency for the Republican Party, these leaders argue that there is no assurance that Christian voters will maintain their engagement in politics as they have in the past.
“Maybe he pays a political price for November,” Brown concluded. “It's going to be a tight election, and even a handful of demotivated pro-lifers in key swing states can make a difference.”
Emily Johnson contributed to this report for TROIB News
